The
federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational institutions
is Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972 (amending the
Higher Education Act of 1965). This act is codified as Title 20, United
States Code, Chapter 38, Sections 1681-1686. The act was also amended
by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 ("Title IX").

The law states that "no person in the United States shall on the
basis of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or
activity receiving federal financial assistance. The amendment in 1987
expanded the definition of program or activity to include all the operations
of an educational institution, governmental entity or private employer
that receives federal funds.

Title IX forbids sex discrimination in all university student services
and academic programs including, but not limited to, admissions, financial
aid, academic advising, housing, athletics, recreational services, college
residential life programs, health services, counseling and psychological
services, Registrar's office, classroom assignments, grading and discipline.
Title IX also forbids discrimination because of sex in employment and
recruitment consideration or selection, whether full time or part time,
under any education program or activity operated by an institution receiving
or benefiting from federal financial assistance ("recipient").
There are nine exceptions listed in the act most of which are not relevant
to UCSC. The only exceptions that may apply deal with fraternities,
sororities and father-son and mother-daughter activities.

Following the passage of Title IX, the U.S. Department of Education
(the "Department") issued its regulations for compliance with
Title IX. The Office for Civil Rights ("OCR") in the Department
is responsible for enforcing Title IX. OCR's responsibility to ensure
that institutions that receive federal funds comply with Title IX is
carried out through compliance enforcement. The principle enforcement
activity is the investigation and resolution of complaints filed by
those alleging sex discrimination. In addition, through a compliance
review program of selected recipients, OCR is able to identify and remedy
sex discrimination which may not be addressed through complaint investigation.
OCR has discretion to select an institution for review in order to assess
its compliance with Title IX even absent the filing of a complaint If
the investigation indicates there has been a violation of Title IX,
OCR will attempt to obtain voluntary compliance and negotiate appropriate
remedies. Title IX also protects people from discrimination on the basis
of sex in employment and employment practices in educational programs
or activities receiving federal financial assistance. The prohibition
encompasses, but is not limited to, recruitment, advertising, hiring,
upgrading, tenure, firing, rates of pay, fringe benefits, leave for
pregnancy and childbirth, and participation in employer sponsored activities.
Because employment discrimination is not a part of the Title IX Coordinator/Sexual
Harassment Officer ("Title IX Officer") duties, I will focus
on its application to the UCSC student population.

OCR requires each recipient to issue notices of nondiscrimination. It
recommends using one statement to comply with the requirements of Title
VI, Title IX and Section 504 regulations. This combined notice must
contain two elements: a statement of nondiscrimination on the basis
of which OCR enforces civil rights statutes; and the identity by name
or title, address and telephone number of the employee(s) responsible
for coordinating the agency's compliance efforts.

Following its passage, Title IX has been interpreted by the federal
government to cover all activities and programs of educational institutions
receiving federal funds and all education programs of institutions whose
primary mission is not education. In 1984 however, the U.S. Supreme
Court, in Grove City College v. Bell ruled that Title IX was restricted
to only those specific programs or activities funded with federal money.
As a result, discrimination in many programs or activities was no longer
prohibited. On March 22, 1988, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Restoration
Act of 1987 over President Reagan's veto. This act overturned the Supreme
Court's earlier decision and restored Title IX coverage so that once
again it applies to the entire institution regardless of where federal
funds are utilized.

Although some schools are exempt from coverage with regard to admissions,
all schools must treat their students without discrimination on the
basis of sex. Courts have interpreted Title IX to prohibit institutions
from, on the basis of sex: (1) denying any person aid, benefits or services
in all areas, including course offerings, extracurricular activities
such as student organizations and competitive athletics, financial aid,
facilities and housing; (2) providing different aid, benefits, or services
or provide them in a different manner; (3) subjecting any person to
separate or different rules of behavior, sanctions, or treatment, including
rules pertaining to appearance; (4) providing significant assistance
such as facilities or act as a sponsor to any organization or person
which discriminates on the basis of sex in providing any aid or benefits
to students or employees; and (5) limiting any person in the enjoyment
of any right, privilege, advantage or opportunity. In sum, schools cannot
use sex as a category to classify students.

Early Case History:

Case
law relevant to an institutions treatment of students is limited and
theories explaining this are endless. There is much more case law dealing
with an educational institution's discrimination in employment on the
basis of sex. Some of the more famous cases are Melani v. Bd. of Education
of the City of New York (1983); Zuboric v. Cornell University (1984);
Sweeney v. Board of Trustees of Keene State College (1979); and Jew
v. University of Idaho (1990).

Following are some precedent setting cases and their holdings regarding
student rights under Title IX.

Mississippi University of Women v. Hogan, 102 Supreme Court 3331, (1982).
Private single-sex undergraduate institutions can be exempt from the
admissions requirements of Title IX but they must comply with constitutional
equal protection requirements in admissions;

Canon v. University of Chicago, 710 F. 2d 351. In 1977 the U.S. Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals gave an individual student the right to bring
suit against an educational institution for discrimination;

Cockburn v. Santa Monica Community College District. A faculty member
was dismissed for embracing and kissing his student laboratory assistant
once and attempting to do so at other times. The Court held that the
behavior created a hostile environment for the student.

Two cases addressed the "welcomeness" of sexual advances:

Naragon v. Wharton. The Court addressed the issue of consent in a lesbian
relationship between a student and a teaching assistant. The university
was found to be within its rights when it changed the duties of the
assistant.

Korf v. Ball State. Testimony suggested that "submission"
rather than consent or welcomeness characterized the relationship between
a professor and a student. The Court of Appeals found the University
had acted properly in dismissing the professor.

Alexander v. Yale University, 631 F. 2d 178, 2nd Circuit (1980). This
case presents an example of quid pro quo sexual harassment in academia
involving a student's allegation that she received a poor grade after
rejecting her professor's offer of an "A" for compliance with
his sexual demands. The Court recognized that Title IX affords relief
for sexual harassment that deprives an individual of educational benefits
but held that students must prove a distinct and palpable injury, thus
rejecting the hostile environment theory.

Moire v. Temple University School of Medicine, 3rd Circuit (1986). The
District Court allowed a claim for sexual harassment based solely on
environmental harm (opposite of Alexander). The Court's explicit recognition
that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC")
guidelines are equally applicable to Title IX suggests that the courts
will continue to decide claims of sexual harassment brought by students
under Title IX using reasoning similar to that established under Title
VII cases.